Thursday, Aug 21, 2008
Conservatives say Bush is drifting on Iraq and that Fallujah should be crushed, but they've been conspicuously quiet about the photos of flag-draped coffins. Plus: O'Reilly bashes Rummy!
Apr 28, 2004 | As the Bush administration continues to struggle with the daunting military and political puzzle of Iraq, where multiple factions launched deadly insurgencies during April, conservatives are growing anxious to unleash the full might of the U.S. military. To do anything less, they argue, now imperils long-term U.S. credibility and control.
Even so, some hawkish commentators seem wary of the vast political and strategic risks involved. As U.S. forces went on the offensive around Najaf on Tuesday aiming to root out Shiite militant leader Muqtada al-Sadr, National Review contributor Jed Babbin remained somewhat cautious about attacking that citadel of Islamic holy ground, arguing that the U.S. needs to "get the Iraqis ready to do it themselves in Najaf." He doesn't go into detail as to how, though he says the Coalition Provisional Authority's inability to gain clear support from prominent Iraqi Shia cleric Ali al-Sistani is "a failure of historic proportion."
But Babbit appears far less concerned about the potential fallout from launching an all-out attack on Fallujah. Calling the cease-fire there "phony," he says the Bush administration needs to replace its flat-footed leadership posthaste -- and then invite all the Iraqi civilians of Fallujah to get out of the way so that U.S. forces can level the city if they have to. (On Tuesday night, U.S. forces stepped up airstrikes, ending a shaky two-day extension to last week's cease-fire.)
"Any place -- mosque, hospital, school -- is a legitimate military target when the enemy is using it for a military purpose. The worst of it is that we've waited too long to strike, and are allowing the insurgents to trap us into the house-to-house fighting Saddam wanted us to face in Baghdad. We can still avoid the trap. But the leadership in Iraq -- Bremer and army old-think generals -- will have to be replaced before we can ...
"We are adrift, and our enemies are taking full advantage of it ... We could have, and should have, made a full-out attack on Fallujah two weeks ago. The longer we wait, the more casualties our men suffer while the Iranian, Syrian, and other imported terrorists entrench themselves among the innocents there. Our military operations should proceed without regard to damage to the city, only taking care to avoid inflicting casualties on the noncombatants. This can still be done, by requiring the women, children, and elders to leave now, and then use the full force we have available to kill the insurgents. No more ceasefires anywhere, please, until the insurgents are beaten decisively."
Ralph Peters, a regular contributor to the New York Post, is even more blunt about the current battle for Fallujah, blasting the Bush administration for a lack of foresight and planning.
"We created the problem of Fallujah -- through neglect. Had we had adequate forces on hand a year ago in the immediate aftermath of combat to permeate the Sunni Triangle with troops, and had the administration had the clarity of vision to declare martial law, the current violence would have been averted.
"Instead, we handed gold-plated lollipops to killers and worried about hurting the feelings of Saddam's hard-core supporters. We looked away as the terrorists gripped one Iraqi city after another -- because we lacked the forces to put a military 'cop' on every beat. Our enemies didn't need to hide -- we weren't around often enough to see them ...
"Since the cease-fire, our troops have had to endure the ludicrous charade of 'negotiations' with the Fallujah city fathers -- breaking the rule that we never negotiate with terrorists or their surrogates. The resulting 'agreement' to turn in heavy weapons led to the mockery of sending the Marines a pick-up truck full of junk while the terrorists gained weeks to prepare their defenses, construct ambushes and organize a far tougher resistance than they could have presented two weeks ago."
Peters says the only way to ultimately subdue U.S. enemies in Iraq is to spill their blood for all the world to see.
"Our insipid diplomacy plays into the hands of our enemies: It looks like cowardice. And it is. We must not only win, we must be seen to win, graphically and decisively. 'Experts' warn that we mustn't alienate the hard-core Sunnis or the fundamentalist Shia's. Wake up and smell the cordite: They're already alienated. They'll never love us. So we'd better make damned sure they fear us ...
"We must win. If the enemy fights from mosques, level the mosques. If they fight from hospitals, gut the hospitals. If they open fire from orphanages, turn them into blackened shells. We cannot allow terrorists any sanctuaries. The men we face -- and the watching world -- interpret our decency as weakness ...
"The president needs to lead, not equivocate. If there is any emerging resemblance to Vietnam, it isn't on the battlefield, but in the White House, where no one seems to have the will to win."
Get Salon in your mailbox!